Alberta Nutrition Guidelines for Children and Youth: Awareness and Use in Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In June 2008, the Alberta government released the Alberta Nutrition Guidelines for Children and Youth. We evaluated the awareness of and intent to use the guidelines in Alberta schools, and sought to determine whether organizational characteristics were a factor in adoption of the guidelines. METHODS: Randomly selected schools from across Alberta completed a 19-question telephone survey, which included open- and closed-ended questions about the schools' characteristics, the priority given to healthy eating, awareness of the guidelines, and the schools' intent to use the guidelines. Of the 554 schools contacted, 357 (64%) completed the survey. RESULTS: Overall, 76.1% of schools were aware of the guidelines and 65% were in the process of adopting them. Fifty percent of schools identified healthy eating as a high priority and 65.9% reported making changes to improve the nutritional quality of foods offered in the past year. Schools that were larger, public, and urban, and had a school champion and healthy eating as a high priority were more likely to be adopting the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Most schools were aware of the nutrition guidelines and many had begun the adoption process. Identifying a school champion may be an important first step for schools in terms of adopting health promotion initiatives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".